patrick.net

indigenous says

If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start
any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.

I read it as well. Like the previous poster said--some deregulation activity started with Carter. It was implemented by Reagan. Some further activity started and was implemented by Reagan. What's your point?

Nitpicking aside--do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?

tatupu70 says

do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?

No quite the opposite.

indigenous says

No quite the opposite.

examples?

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

No quite the opposite.

examples?

Locally look to California and the growth of public sector salaries and benefits, legislators who pass 900 new laws a year.

Federally the government spends 1/3 of the budget with borrowed money.

The average federal worker makes twice what a private sector counterpart makes.

You are now going to say that is not regulation. But these mutts have justify their paycheck somehow. So we end up with seat belt laws that cost $200 or other traffic violations that cost absurd amounts of money. Business is leaving the state in droves.

At the FED level we have Frank Dodd that will be a bigger impediment to commerce than Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare that will enslave the economy forever. Bush's TARP was the beginning of the end based on pure propaganda. The CRA planted the seed for Greenspan to impale the future of the US.

indigenous says

Locally look to California and the growth of public sector salaries and benefits, legislators who pass 900 new laws a year.

That's not a regulation.

indigenous says

Federally the government spends 1/3 of the budget with borrowed money.

That's not a regulation

indigenous says

The average federal worker makes twice what a private sector counterpart makes.

Not only is that not a regulation, it's a purposely misleading statement.

indigenous says

You are now going to say that is not regulation

You're right. I already did.

indigenous says

At the FED level we have Frank Dodd that will be a bigger impediment to commerce than Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare that will enslave the economy forever. Bush's TARP was the beginning of the end based on pure propaganda. The CRA planted the seed for Greenspan to impale the future of the US demise.

So, Frank Dodd and Sarbanes Oxley are all you've got? The whole CRA narrative is bullshit and has been disproven many times on here. The fact that you still cite it is proof that you don't care to learn anything, but rather continue to spout your nonsense ad nauseum.

Among the true causes of the housing bubble was Deregulation--namely the Gramm/Leach/Biley Act of 1999. The repeal of Glass Steagall...

tatupu70 says

Among the true causes of the housing bubble was Deregulation--namely the Gramm/Leach/Biley Act of 1999. The repeal of Glass Steagall...

Doesn't matter had Greenspan not made the money available it would not have happened.

As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.

The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.

indigenous says

Doesn't matter had Greenspan not made the money available it would not have happened.

Of course it would have--you don't need low interest rates to abandon underwriting practices.

indigenous says

As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.

Glass Steagall separated commercial from investment banking.

indigenous says

The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.

You're right--it wouldn't have been a problem. It would have been an effing disaster.

tatupu70 says

Of course it would have--you don't need low interest rates to abandon underwriting practices.

What? If you cannot get the loans it is moot.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.

Glass Steagall separated commercial from investment banking.

It still did not cover derivatives.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.

You're right--it wouldn't have been a problem. It would have been an effing disaster.

Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book

indigenous says

What? If you cannot get the loans it is moot.

But with no underwriting standards, you can!

indigenous says

It still did not cover derivatives.

It also didn't cover gambling on the Super Bowl. Who cares?

indigenous says

Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book

Sorry--David Stockman's opinion is just that. His opinion. There are LOTS of folks that disagree with him.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book

Sorry--David Stockman's opinion is just that. His opinion. There are LOTS of folks that disagree with him.

Reagans budget director is just an opinion? Wow so your opinion is equal in value?

indigenous says

If things are so bad here why do we keep getting immigrants?

LOL. Immigrants as a % of the population, the US ranks just behind Belize and slightly above Djibouti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

control point says

LOL. Immigrants as a % of the population, the US ranks just behind Belize and slightly above Djibouti

There you go with the graphs again. How do you figure this is a correlation to the standard of living of the poor?

indigenous says

Reagans budget director is just an opinion? Wow so your opinion is equal in value?

Nope--not mine. Try these:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/19/president-bush-and-warren-buffett-on-the-financial.aspx

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/14/warren-buffett-speaks-out-about-the-financial-cris.asp

anonymous says

The new study, based on tens of millions of anonymous tax records, finds that the mobility rate has held largely steady in recent decades, although it remains lower than in Canada and in much of Western Europe, where the odds of escaping poverty are higher."

In our latest episode of lies, damn lies, and statistics

We see where the "venerable" Mr Saez rears his head again, he is venerable because he went to Berkeley, the same school as our own venerable economist Roberto.

In his latest rendition of the poor are getting sodomized by the rich he again misses the fact that his trope does not include public transfers to the poor or after tax income of the sodomizers. In the words of genuinely accurate economist:

"Even aside from the fact that the U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the OECD,
the pretax, pretransfer “facts about growing inequality” from Piketty and Saez, are entirely
irrelevant to the topic of tax progressivity − for the obvious reason that they ignore taxes,
transfers and refundable tax credits. The highest tax rates could be doubled and/or means-tested
transfers to the poor tripled with no direct effect at all on income as Piketty and Saez define it,"

Located here:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WorkingPaper-9.pdf

Pages 16-18

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start

any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.

I read it as well. Like the previous poster said--some deregulation activity started with Carter. It was implemented by Reagan. Some further activity started and was implemented by Reagan. What's your point?

Nitpicking aside--do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?

But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.

tatupu70 says

Nope--not mine. Try these:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/19/president-bush-and-warren-buffett-on-the-financial.aspx

Well the oracle was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout so or course he praises it.

A Sacramento Bee examination of regulatory records has found that his extensive holdings in financial firms have made Buffett, the world's second-wealthiest person behind Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, one of the top beneficiaries of the banking bailout.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/05/65496/buffett-champion-of-bailout-is.html#storylink=cpy

Obama's utilizing trickle up economics. How does that work?

Entitlemented says

Obama's utilizing trickle up economics. How does that work?

Similar to pissing up a rope.

Homeboy says

That's not data, that's ad hominem.

No there is a difference, I'm pointing out a non sequitar an assumption.

My data is simply that if the US was that bad off people would not immigrate here, but they do.

spydah_hh says

But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.

Yes--probably. That's hardly meaningful though. The 1920s led to the Great Depression.

We have much less regulation than in the 1945-1975 time period.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.

Yes--probably. That's hardly meaningful though. The 1920s led to the Great Depression.

We have much less regulation than in the 1945-1975 time period.

How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

I am not going to go through all the acts and regulations but there's no way we have less regulation today than in 1945-1975. We have more because we have accounted for all the technological and social changes that have occurred.

Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1789-1901
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1901-2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_2001-present

Now here's a list of those that were repealed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_repealed_legislation

The list of those that were repealed is very very small while yet each year we're making up new legislation that provides more government intervention and regulations.

Also this is just federal legislation this does not include state or even local legislation either.

spydah_hh says

How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.

That's my point. Lack of regulation leads to wealth disparity.

spydah_hh says

Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:

Legislation does not equal regulation.

indigenous says

Well the oracle was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout so or course he praises it.

Doesn't make him any less right.

tatupu70 says

Doesn't make him any less righ

Fuck off Tat, you are a complete waste of time

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.

That's my point. Lack of regulation leads to wealth disparity.

spydah_hh says

Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:

Legislation does not equal regulation.

No you're missing the point...

I said back int he 1920 there was less regulation today but yet we still had high wealth disparity.. Today we have a lot more regulation but have the highest wealth disparity. If anything I am pretty sure that wealth disparity will have more to do with the monetary policy.

Not all legislation are regulations no, but some or many are. They can be one in the same really.

bgamall4 says

You are so out of it. The wealth of 85 people on Forbes is more than the wealth of 3.5 billion people. And the real trillionaires like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, are not even on the list.

Prove it

jazz music says

Nobody cares about facts when getting pitched by POTUS. The graph above was not available

No Obama quote?

or current graph?

jazz music says

indigenous says

Obama quote?

No. Care to grace us with your most astute observation?

Not that I'm defending Bush but the current debt is 17 trillion and climbing and we still have 2 yr to go.

By the time we see the full effects of Obama care and Frank Dodd Bush will look like a miser. Of course that will be a very short lived photo opportunity.

jazz music says

Banks are currently meeting to mount a lawsuit against the framers of Dodd-Frank for consequential losses of bailouts they would have otherwise received.

The main point I'm making is that the debt is increasing faster now than under Bush.

The same two guys that were central to the problem in the first place created the fix. Oh this couldn't possibly go wrong.

It is hard to predict what the outcome will be but from what I read it will not be effective there are many articles about it.

A comparison might be Sarbanes Oxley that was passed after the Enron scandal. It is estimated to cost the economy 1.5 trillion dollars per year. It has yet to find one instance of financial irregularity in over 10 years.

Another side effect may be a drop in IPOs since the passing of SOX.

This would be a more likely result of Frank Dodd.

jazz music says

And no wonder it's so hard to make sense to your type, all the standard lingo has been turned around backwards... by well paid media commentators ... which you would call liberal, but you would mean to imply that media exists to effect downwardly distributed benefits which the five families that own media would never wish to do.

None of us know all the details of the health plan but the reality is it will cost, actually drain the economy, in perpetuity

A similar thing happened when LBJ passed medicare at the time (1967) it was estimated to cost 6 times as much by 1990, actually it cost 61 times as much by 1990.

Today it is the biggest unfunded liability and a boat anchor to the economy subject to a gigantic amount of fraud.

The reality is that when you reduce the cost to 0 the demand skyrockets the country will have no choice but to ration the care.

spydah_hh says

said back int he 1920 there was less regulation today but yet we still had high
wealth disparity

And I'm saying in both time periods we had relatively low levels of regulation and high disparity. It's hard to quantify "amount of regulation". It also depends on enforcement, etc. But IMO, the last 30 years has seen a steady stream of deregulation...

Homeboy says

People immigrate to lots of industrialized countries. There could be any number of reasons for it: Jobs, climate, politics, immigration policy, whatever. Saying that people immigrate to a country doesn't prove that country's poor are necessarily better off than another country. The only way to prove that is with data. I have provided two charts to back up my contention, and you have provided...well...nothing.

That is bullshit, they immigrate to improve their standard of living.

Again for the 3rd time your charts have many inputs that do not measure what you are purporting that they do.

indigenous says

The main point I'm making is that the debt is increasing faster now than
under Bush.

No the main point is the Bush inherited a $281B federal surplus and turned it into a $1.2T deficit. Obama inherited a $1.2T deficit and has reduced it to $280B deficit.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/deficit.htm

tatupu70 says

No the main point is the Bush inherited a $281B federal surplus and turned it into a $1.2T deficit. Obama inherited a $1.2T deficit and has reduced it to $280B deficit.

The current debt is 17 trillion. I don't care who started it the is it is growing.

indigenous says

The current debt is 17 trillion. I don't care who started it the is it is
growing

I figured you weren't really interested in who is responsible since it doesn't fit your narrative.

tatupu70 says

I figured you weren't really interested in who is responsible since it doesn't fit your narrative.

You and Jazz have me pegged as a Republican. I don't get give a rats ass about either other than their incompetence/treason is going to drastically change the lives of at least 300+million people and effect a lot more.

It is a shame...

indigenous says

You and Jazz have me pegged as a Republican.

I don't care what party you claim to follow. I just wish you listened when people show you facts and data. Instead you continue with your head in the sand and hands over your ears.

tatupu70 says

And I'm saying in both time periods we had relatively low levels of
regulation and high disparity. It's hard to quantify "amount of regulation". It
also depends on enforcement, etc. But IMO, the last 30 years has seen a steady
stream of deregulation...

Are you truly arguing that on the whole, there is less regulation today than there was 30 years ago?

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

said back int he 1920 there was less regulation today but yet we still had high
wealth disparity

And I'm saying in both time periods we had relatively low levels of regulation and high disparity. It's hard to quantify "amount of regulation". It also depends on enforcement, etc. But IMO, the last 30 years has seen a steady stream of deregulation...

There's not much that was repealed I just showed you a link. the only major thing that was repealed was glass stegall act an dlike waht indigenous said that doesn't stop derivatives it only separated investment banks from commercial banks which really doesn't even matter considering you have the FDIC and FED to bail out the banks anyway. But it doesn't stop thins like derivatives or naked short selling or CDOs or whatever all this still would of occurred.

Had we had glass Steagall or not we still would of had the 2008 crash.

Lawrence White and Jerry Markham rejected these claims and argued that products linked to the financial crisis were not regulated by Glass–Steagall or were available from commercial banks or their affiliates before the GLBA repealed Glass–Steagall sections 20 and 32.[52]Alan Blinder wrote in 2009 that he had “yet to hear a good answer” to the question “what bad practices would have been prevented if Glass–Steagall was still on the books?” Blinder argued that “disgraceful” mortgage underwriting standards “did not rely on any new GLB powers,” that “free-standing investment banks” not the “banking-securities conglomerates” permitted by the GLBA were the major producers of “dodgy MBS,” and that he could not “see how this crisis would have been any milder if GLB had never passed.”[53] Similarly, Melanie Fein has written that the financial crisis “was not a result of the GLBA” and that the “GLBA did not authorize any securities activities that were the cause of the financial crisis.”[54] Fein noted “[s]ecuritization was not an activity authorized by the GLBA but instead had been held by the courts in 1990 to be part of the business of banking rather than an activity proscribed by the Glass–Steagall Act.”[55] As described above, in 1978 the OCC approved a national bank securitizing residential mortgages.

Thus to say we have more regulations today than in the 1920 a hellavh a lot more and most of these regulations prevents new or smaller businesses to rise and challenge big businesses.

spydah_hh says

Thus to say we have more regulations today than in the 1920 a hellavh a lot
more and most of these regulations prevents new or smaller businesses to rise
and challenge big businesses.

It's also important to remember that legislation is not equivalent to regulation. Legislation is the enabler of executive branch agencies to then continuously create cascades of regulations based on the original legislation.

And to your point... Many large corporations often fully support the same legislation and regulation that supposedly well-meaning "liberals" do. The reason: They can absorb the compliance costs, but smaller companies, especially startups cannot, therefore creating a nice barrier from competition. Yep, the same left that hates big business is the big enabler of big business rent seeking behavior.

Claiming that there is less regulation today than 30 years ago is quite silly.